I would just want to share this inspirational story to the group:
Blind photographer Tara Miller wins national photo award | Good News - Yahoo! News
Blind photographer Tara Miller wins national photo award | Good News - Yahoo! News
Blind photographer Tara Miller wins national photo award
- Thread starter Jon
- Start date
- Status
Carolina Photo Guy
Senior Member
You're a skeptic.
What isn't sitting right is that she is LEGALLY blind, not blind in the accepted sense of the word. Practically speaking, I know quite a few people that are legally blind but have learned to cope with their lack of visual acuity.
Something tells me that she may have tripped the shutter, but her son deserves far more credit than he is getting.
If anyone out there wants to flame me, go for it! I'm a big boy and stand by every word.
Browncoat
Senior Member
Yeah, "legally blind" doesn't mean much. You can still have 85% of your eyesight and still be "legally blind". I read in a few related articles that this lady has 10%, and in only one eye, but I doubt that's an accurate assessment. This photo is obviously heavily edited as well, so even if she did take the photo, I wonder if she did the editing.
There's a few other things I could mention about all of this, but I'll just stand over here next to Pete for now.
There's a few other things I could mention about all of this, but I'll just stand over here next to Pete for now.
AxeMan - Rick S.
Senior Member
Jon thank you for sharing, my stepson will be inspired when we read this to him.
I'm on the fence on this one folks. As some of you know I have a "legally blind" stepson. His vision 20/200, what that's breaks down to in how much vision he has left I could not tell you. He does take pictures with Nintendo DSI, now they are not as outstanding as this lady's photo, but it is a photo he took. So I have to believe she may have taken the photo. My stepson watches TV, maybe 3 inches from a 32" flat screen but he does see TV. So I have to believe she may have done the post processing also. Vision impaired people have many tools available to them to make up for the loss of sight.
This women has an eye disorder that started at age 16, so for 16 years this women was sighted, then for the next 20 years she suffered from glaucoma. I have to be tested every six months because I suffer from a pre-glaucoma condition. For those of you who don't know glaucoma slowly takes your vision, so slow you do not see the change. It may be possible that this women may only have 10% of her vision but she has adapted to her 90% vision loss.
Just as Anthony did, I look at this photo and raise an eyebrow, did she really do it? Does it really matter if she did or not? What she has DONE is draw attention to "Vision Loss Awareness". Kudos to her whether she took to photo herself or B/S'ed the world in thinking she did.
Based on my day to day life with an legally blind person, and my first hand knowledge of glaucoma. My final opinion is going to be the MythBusters answer.
Sorry Pete no flames from me.
I'm on the fence on this one folks. As some of you know I have a "legally blind" stepson. His vision 20/200, what that's breaks down to in how much vision he has left I could not tell you. He does take pictures with Nintendo DSI, now they are not as outstanding as this lady's photo, but it is a photo he took. So I have to believe she may have taken the photo. My stepson watches TV, maybe 3 inches from a 32" flat screen but he does see TV. So I have to believe she may have done the post processing also. Vision impaired people have many tools available to them to make up for the loss of sight.
This women has an eye disorder that started at age 16, so for 16 years this women was sighted, then for the next 20 years she suffered from glaucoma. I have to be tested every six months because I suffer from a pre-glaucoma condition. For those of you who don't know glaucoma slowly takes your vision, so slow you do not see the change. It may be possible that this women may only have 10% of her vision but she has adapted to her 90% vision loss.
Just as Anthony did, I look at this photo and raise an eyebrow, did she really do it? Does it really matter if she did or not? What she has DONE is draw attention to "Vision Loss Awareness". Kudos to her whether she took to photo herself or B/S'ed the world in thinking she did.
Based on my day to day life with an legally blind person, and my first hand knowledge of glaucoma. My final opinion is going to be the MythBusters answer.
Sorry Pete no flames from me.
cjtm
New member
Hi everyone new to the forum but I thought I would drop in my two cents. This story is amazing if people would just take time to read past the news paper headlines. As it says in the paper she was born with cataracts because her mother came in contact with someone who had german measles. Due to technology back in 1972 the surgery left her with scaring so she always had poor vision and was a member of the CNIB. It wasn't until she was 16 that the scar tissue came out on her eyes bringing on Glaucoma. If any one would like to question this lady's ability feel free to check out her portfolio on her website. She has every right to call herself a Professional Photographer. I think the skeptics in this forum should provide links to there portfolios and compare their work to hers. She always says judge her work as full sighted photographer because that is the quality of work that her customers demand. Maybe we should spend less time posting and speculating and more time out shooting. Bravo Tara you should be proud of all your accomplishments and prove the skeptics wrong.
Last edited by a moderator:
Carolina Photo Guy
Senior Member
This post is directed to cjtm as I feel the above post was directed towards me.
I have been reading for nearly 60 years now. How-ever, you should practice what you preach and READ my post. At no time was I denigrating Ms Miller.
What got my panties in a bunch was the FACT that she did not acknowledge the contributions made by her family to her chosen career. In fact, after reading the article, one is left with the impression that she packed everything, made her way out to the site, unpacked everything and set up and then took the shot. All of this with only 10% sight!
Her son was only there for moral support.
Sounds a lot like the kid that rode his wheelchair all the way across the United States. People forget that his FATHER was doing all of the pushing!
I had the pleasure of taking care of my sister during the last 10 years of her life. She was cancer ridden, deaf and she also had 10% of her sight left. I got to know her in ways that most people will never know a loved one, so I can talk the talk because I have walked the walk. My sister did not take credit for ANYTHING that she did not do completely. As a matter of fact, in Kernersville she was known as quite the artist. HER work was hers and no one elses.
Tara Miller strikes me as a person willing to be an "image" so bleeding hearts can feel better about themselves because "disabled" people can do as good as "abled". (The poor grammar is deliberate)
I have looked at her work. Good stuff. Its a pity that she has to do all of this work all by herself. She would have a lot more fun if others worked with her.
Tara should be far more proud that she has a loving family that helps her with "all her accomplishments". Instead, she strikes me as a very selfish person.
Peter Brickey
I have been reading for nearly 60 years now. How-ever, you should practice what you preach and READ my post. At no time was I denigrating Ms Miller.
What got my panties in a bunch was the FACT that she did not acknowledge the contributions made by her family to her chosen career. In fact, after reading the article, one is left with the impression that she packed everything, made her way out to the site, unpacked everything and set up and then took the shot. All of this with only 10% sight!
Her son was only there for moral support.
Sounds a lot like the kid that rode his wheelchair all the way across the United States. People forget that his FATHER was doing all of the pushing!
I had the pleasure of taking care of my sister during the last 10 years of her life. She was cancer ridden, deaf and she also had 10% of her sight left. I got to know her in ways that most people will never know a loved one, so I can talk the talk because I have walked the walk. My sister did not take credit for ANYTHING that she did not do completely. As a matter of fact, in Kernersville she was known as quite the artist. HER work was hers and no one elses.
Tara Miller strikes me as a person willing to be an "image" so bleeding hearts can feel better about themselves because "disabled" people can do as good as "abled". (The poor grammar is deliberate)
I have looked at her work. Good stuff. Its a pity that she has to do all of this work all by herself. She would have a lot more fun if others worked with her.
Tara should be far more proud that she has a loving family that helps her with "all her accomplishments". Instead, she strikes me as a very selfish person.
Peter Brickey
Last edited:
Carolina Photo Guy
Senior Member
Rick, you are walking the walk. Dude, my main thrust was that no one is in a vacuum. I don't care if Ms Miller took the shot or not. The fact that she didn't seem to care if her families work was acknowledged was what set me off. Do I think she took the picture all by herself? Of course not! She can't drive!
The least she could have done was thank her son for his assistance. THAT was my gripe.
Far too often disabled people are enabled to the belief that they don't need anyone. I love my family and I want to include them in everything!
I hope that your stepson wants to include all of y'all in his activities because that is "FAMILY".
I respect the hell out y'all. Sometimes, I aint so good at saying' it.
After reading all this, as a legally blind person (in one eye, with only about 15% vision), I had to experiment and see if I could operate my D3100 while closing my "good" eye (which is bad but corrected with glasses). I thought that by pressing the screen up to my eye (about 1/4 inch away) I might be able to make out the settings, I could not make out the settings or meter. All I was able to do is point it in the right direction and shoot. She may have adaptive equipment (like a real big screen or something that verbalizes the settings). You could memorize settings, but without knowing what the meters read, it's just guessing. I would need a great deal of assistance to continue this hobby relying on my bad eye. Kudos to her for what she is doing, but she should recognize her helpers.
Last edited:
Well I can see good enough I guess...I just need some gear and a subject...really don't plan on entering any contests though...I'm not a hack...I am a hick! hahahaha 
Canada has a socialized medical system...I am just curious what kind of medicene do you get in Canada when you have glaucoma? If you are 100% disabled do you get a "Social Security" check in the mail in Canada? How much?
Canada has a socialized medical system...I am just curious what kind of medicene do you get in Canada when you have glaucoma? If you are 100% disabled do you get a "Social Security" check in the mail in Canada? How much?
AxeMan - Rick S.
Senior Member
Rick I find your experiment very interesting and related to our questions. Thank you so much for sharing.
cjtm
New member
The difference is Ms. Miller says in her story that she uses the same tools that every professional photographer does. She uses a light meter and she studies her subject wether it be mallards or birds of prey or chasing storms. She prides her self on being educated and not just pray and spray. As far her not giving others credit it is the journalist that writes story and spins the story they way want. To say that Ms. Miller is selfish is just showing how uneducated you are. Do you know the person? have you spoken with her? She has responded to over 500 emails from people reaching out to her. She has claimed nothing more then having a passion for photography. So I guess in your opinion Steven Hawkins must be a fraud to? So many doubters and then we have to stoop to the fact that she is a canadian. What does that have to do with anything. I am still waiting to see other's post links to there portfolio's. It is a very good thing that Professional Clients that Ms. Miller shoots for is more educated then the skeptics on this forum. The food photography that she does is right up there with the best in the world. Here's an exercise for you instead of shooting with one eye closed, try having one open mind. Instead of discrediting Ms. Miller why not embrace her for the talented images that she produces. All you are doing is school yard bullying. If you spent less time posting and more time shooting you might be 1/8th the photographer that she is. What it boils done to is that you can't produce anything close to her work so you have to discredit it. Just because you have over 1000 posts it doesn't make you a professional, it makes you somebody that should spend more time on practicing photography.
cjtm
New member
After reviewing the skeptics images and I mean all the skeptics, stop posting and start shooting more. Try empowering a flower, a flower grows up towards the sun. Stop being lazy get down on the ground at the flowers level and try shooting from a creative angle. All your angles are the same straight down and very flat. Rule #1 of a hack photographer if you blowout an image or under expose it just convert it to black and white.
Carolina Photo Guy
Senior Member
ohkphoto
Snow White
Not true. The person being interviewed can emphasize what is being included and certainly influence the spin the story takes. A good journalist will glean that information from the interview. Evidently, the "spin" reflected that what was important for her was that the award went to "a blind photographer" --the title says it all, If you're going to be interviewed by anyone, you do your homework --YOU decide what message you get across.
To not acknowledge someone who helps you, especially on a daily basis, is selfish. And I have to agree that the article portrayed her as "selfish" . Again, she (or her publicist!) did not do the homework. Any lack of education is on the part of the person who coached her or was supposed to be coaching her or advocating for her.
Not a thing, and none of the posts state anything as such.
Emulating a "disability" is the best way to learn empathy, and is in fact very relevant to having an open mind "
Posting to a forum and being a good photographer are independent concepts. One can be good at both tasks.
It's unfortunate that you consider healthy skepticism such a threat and find it necessary to attack posters on a personal level when none of them have denigrated the photographer's abilities. Questioning how a blind person can photoshop a photograph is not attacking the person.
This forum is about healthy and honest discussions on all sides of an issue. Perhaps you should share how you know so much about Tara to be so upset about legitimate questions about how she accomplishes her tasks. What is your connection?
Browncoat
Senior Member
Yes. This thread was re-opened at my request because it is now ranked in the top 10 of a Google search for "Tara Miller Photography". I thought it was imperative that this discussion does not damage the reputation of Ms. Miller or of Nikonites by leaving the thread as it was. We were not about to let the beginnings of a flame war be the final word on this topic as it does not portray the stand-up principals that have made this site what it is, or to portray the community here as anti-blind.
Since it was I who first voiced skepticism, I will explain my findings now:
As someone who works in journalism, I will be the first to tell you that what is reported is often not actual fact. Reporters tend to focus on the interesting aspects of the story versus documenting what can be proven. There are several online versions of this story: here, here, and here. Once you have read all three versions, it is easy to spot the discrepancies between them. Case in point: the definition of "legal blindness" can vary. Here is that definition from the CNIB, the same organization who sponsored this photo contest in the first place:
Many of us associate blindness with complete (or near complete) loss of sight. That is not the case when defining "legal blindness". Read this description of how visual acuity is measured:
Those are facts, people. Documented. Do not attempt to dispute them. One article writes that Ms. Miller has less than 10% eyesight, but the others do not. While that's not the point entirely, it is noteworthy to mention that the extent of her blindness is not confirmed by any source.
----------------------------------------
As for the rest, I will direct my attention to the new member, cjtm:
I did check out her portfolio. Both her website and Flickr streams 1 and 2. Yes, she has every right to call herself a professional photographer, no one claimed that she didn't. And she certainly does not say to judge her work as a full-sighted photographer as evidenced on her Flicker profile page:
and quoted in the above articles:
In addition, given that the Flickr username for these accounts is cjtmiller, I think it is safe to say that our anonymous flame-inciting new member cjtm is none other than Ms. Miller herself. An IP address search also confirms this. And now since that cat is out of the bag:
No one here has attempted to discredit you or your work. It is insanely obvious who you were by the nature of your posts. I went against my better judgement and didn't call you out earlier, but at this point in the game, it must be done. I would put your portfolio up against many of the members here, and since you do not want to be judged on your sight loss, I would venture to say that your work is impressive...but certainly not above the fold.
My biggest skepticism with the contest winning photo was that it is an outstanding photo among an otherwise so-so collection. It has nothing to do with your blindness, and I'm quite certain that no one responding to this thread meant any ill will to you personally or your business. At the very least, I think you owe the Nikonites community an apology for your outburst and attempt at anonymity by posting such rhetoric under an assumed anonymous identity.
- Status